Georgia has now joined South Carolina's first steps toward state nullification of Obamacare.  The four-step process, developed by the Tenth Amendment Center, includes awarding citizens state tax credits to offset any federal penalties, and revoking the state licenses of insurers that participate.


Grim said...

Wow. I didn't even know this was being considered. Outstanding.

Cass said...

Agreed - but I'm not holding my breath for Maryland to follow suit :p

Grim said...

OK, I wrote my state rep to ask him to support Rep. Spencer's effort here.

As for Maryland, well, I hear your state health care head had to resign over the issue already. We'll see where ya'll end up.

Elise said...

The Tenth Amendment Center says that States can/should suspend the licenses of insurers that accept the illegal subsidies. How is that going to work? A resident of Georgia goes to HealthCare.gov; signs up for a plan; and qualifies for a subsidy. He sends the insurance company his part of the payment. Where does the insurer get the rest of the payment?

Grim said...

Presumably Georgia insurance agencies would have to pull out of selling via HealthCare.gov within Georgia, assuming they aren't willing to take the haircut.

Which is what is wanted: the state would be opting out. Insurance agencies operating in Georgia -- and they're already required to operate on a state-by-state level -- would have to do things outside the ACA.

Elise said...

Presumably Georgia insurance agencies would have to pull out of selling via HealthCare.gov within Georgia

Okay but starting when? A quick and dirty search reveals that as of December 11, 6800 people enrolled in a plan via HealthCare.gov. Presumably at least some of them qualified for a subsidy. What happens to those people if Georgia passes this legislation next week, next month, three months from now?

Texan99 said...

Amazing: Obamacare disapproval tops 50% among the young and even among the uninsured.


These guys have really screwed the pooch.

Grim said...

It won't be next week, Elise, because Georgia has an excellent system whereby the legislature is only allowed to be in session for 40 days a year. They've used up their 2013 dates, so it'll be next month before they can reconvene.

As for your question, it's a valid one. If it's a small number like the one you offer, presumably the state could front it for a year so the insurer could get paid and then offer a new plan next year. (They were going to alter their rates next year anyway, once the death spiral kicks in).

But that assumes that anyone actually knows in a valid way what kind of subsidy they should get. That's one of the parts of Obamacare most broken. It could be that no one has a legitimate contract based on a final, true subsidy figure.

Elise said...

I do like that 40 days a year limit - interesting they picked 40. Long enough to wander in the wilderness, perhaps? :+)

It will be an interesting question, won't it? The consumers and the insurance company were engaged in a transaction that is arguably illegal. Would the State front the money? And, if so, would they argue it's to bail out the insurer or to keep the consumer from being thrown off health insurance? If the latter, why will some poor people have the State paying for part of their insurance while others don't?

And behind that is, of course, the issue you raise of whether subsidies are being calculated correctly.

And, down the road, are the lawsuits that may mean the Feds can't subsidize consumers in any State without its own exchange. If Georgia and South Carolina pull this off, what they do may become a template for what a lot of other States will face if the courts decide the Federal government has to actually follow the law.